Nelg Posted May 8, 2013 Report Share Posted May 8, 2013 Well I can tell you that the word Jehovah never existed. It is not a Hebrew word or name. It is a made up Germanic misnomer. So give us the proof. You just made a statement of opinion without one piece of evidence. If you are going to make a point, make it with some type of evidence! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totalspambox3000 Posted May 8, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 8, 2013 The four Canaanite-Hebrew letters *Yodh, Heh, Waw, Heh* are correctly transliterated in Roman (Latin) letters as YHWH and erroneously transliterated as JHVH. The erroneous four letter Romanized (Latinized) version, JHVH was rendered as "JEHOVAH". The word "JEHOVAH" was formed by merging the three vowels (e, o, and a) of the word ELOAH, into the Romanized (Latinized) four letter version JHVH (i.e. JeHoVaH). This was an early concoction. The word "YAHWEH" was formed by merging the vowels (a, and e) of the word HASHEM into the four letter version YHWH (i.e. YaHWeH). This was a more recent invention. Biblical scholars agree with this amalgamation of the Tetragrammton. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totalspambox3000 Posted May 8, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 8, 2013 Also, the New World Translation adds "Jehovah" into the New Testament 237 times, where there is absolutely no ancient manuscript evidence of any kind to support it - PERIOD. Learn Greek and Hebrew and the truth shall set you free. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stealthwarrior Posted May 8, 2013 Report Share Posted May 8, 2013 Do you really thinks GOD has anything to do with any monies?who has it and who does'nt?Hell No.money is a manmade item that he has no interest in what-so-ever.i know a lot of people think this and if it makes you feel better then think that way.there are no diamonds and gold waiting for you when it is your time to go,but something a lot better than that, peace and harmony brothers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totalspambox3000 Posted May 8, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 8, 2013 Nelg, you have to know this though. I've seen your posts on here, you seem like a pretty knowledgeable person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nelg Posted May 8, 2013 Report Share Posted May 8, 2013 Learn Greek and Hebrew and the truth shall set you free. Ευχαριστώ θερμά για τη σύσταση, ξέρω όμως την επίσημες γλώσσες. Τώρα το ερώτημα είναι, εσείς. Αν μπορείτε να διαβάσετε αυτό το σημείο. Έχουμε να κάνουμε με μια κειμενική έκδοση με μετάφραση επιχείρημα. Δεν συνδυάζουν και τις δύο. Do you really thinks GOD has anything to do with any monies?who has it and who does'nt?Hell No.money is a manmade item that he has no interest in what-so-ever.i know a lot of people think this and if it makes you feel better then think that way.there are no diamonds and gold waiting for you when it is your time to go,but something a lot better than that, peace and harmony brothers I somewhat agree with you stealthwarrior. However, not completely. Certainly there is no $$ in the spiritual realm, but God does observe how one uses the resources one has. Look at the example of the rich man and Lazarus (Lk 16:19-21). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totalspambox3000 Posted May 8, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 8, 2013 Learn Greek and Hebrew and the truth shall set you free. Ευχαριστώ θερμά για τη σύσταση, ξέρω όμως την επίσημες γλώσσες. Τώρα το ερώτημα είναι, εσείς. Αν μπορείτε να διαβάσετε αυτό το σημείο. Έχουμε να κάνουμε με μια κειμενική έκδοση με μετάφραση επιχείρημα. Δεν συνδυάζουν και τις . Textual translations are one thing, however you cannot add what is not there. You asked for proof and I provided it. YHWH is not "Jehovah" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markinsa Posted May 8, 2013 Report Share Posted May 8, 2013 Textual translations are one thing, however you cannot add what is not there. You asked for proof and I provided it. YHWH is not "Jehovah" Why is this important? Y H W H means "I Am, Who I Am?" Correct? - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totalspambox3000 Posted May 8, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 8, 2013 Υπάρχει μια διαφορά μεταξύ του Θεού και του Κυρίου. δεν μπορεί να θεωρηθεί το ίδιο και το όνομα του "Jehovah" δεν είναι αμοιβαία. Why is this important? Y H W H means "I Am, Who I Am?" Correct? - Markinsa, see above thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markinsa Posted May 8, 2013 Report Share Posted May 8, 2013 Υπάρχει μια διαφορά μεταξύ του Θεού και του Κυρίου. δεν μπορεί να θεωρηθεί το ίδιο και το όνομα του "Jehovah" δεν είναι αμοιβαία. Markinsa, see above thread. He has more than one name and as long as you know WHO He Is and Love Him with all your mind and soul, I don't think he cares what you call him, as long as, it is done in reverence and respect. - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nelg Posted May 8, 2013 Report Share Posted May 8, 2013 Nelg, you have to know this though. I've seen your posts on here, you seem like a pretty knowledgeable person. I hope you have read the paragraphs in Greek. It is not a biblical text but an statement to you . No offense is intended. It is just playing the game. The prehistoric Hebrew had already passed over into a generic name of God, is ‘Adhon, ‘Adhonay, the latter formed from the former, being the construct plural, ‘adhone, with the 1st person ending -ay, which has been lengthened to ay and so retained as characteristic of the proper name and distinguishing it from the possessive "my Lord." the King James Version does not distinguish, but renders both as possessive, "my Lord" (Jud 6:15; 13:8), and as personal name (Ps 2:4). ‘Adhonay, as a name of Deity, emphasizes His sovereignty (Ps 2:4; Isa 7:7), and corresponds closely to Kurios of the New Testament. It is frequently combined with Yahweh (Ge 15:8; Isa 7:7 etc.) and with ‘Elohim (Ps 86:12). Its most significant service in Massoretic Text is the use of its vowels to point the unpronounceable tetragrammaton YHWH, indicating that the word "‘Adhonay" should be spoken aloud instead of "Yah-weh." This combination of vowels and consonants gives the transliteration "Yahweh," adopted by the American Standard Revised Version. Septuagint represents it by Kurios. I know of no Germanic word that has been used to fit into the Hebrew or Greek texts. These MSS in Hebrew and Aramaic were written centuries before the Germanic nations were ever developed. The Greek Septuagint that replaces the YHWH with Kurios was being used before the time of Christ, or the first century. They had no influence on the transmission of the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek MSS. The name Yahweh is a combination of the tetragrammaton (YHWH) with the vowels of ‘Adhonay, transliterated as Yehowah, but read aloud by the Hebrews ‘adhonay. While both derivation and meaning are lost to us in the uncertainties of its ante-Biblical origin, the following inferences seem to be justified by the facts: (1) This name was common to religions other than Israel’s, having been found in Babylonian inscriptions. Ammonite, Arabic and Egyptian names appear also to contain it but while, like ‘Elohim, it was common to primitive Semitic religion, it became Israel’s distinctive name for the Deity. (2) It was, therefore, not first made known at the call of Moses (Ex 3:13-16;6:2-8), but, being already known, was at that time given a larger revelation and interpretation: God, to be known to Israel henceforth under the name "Yahweh" and in its fuller significance, was the One sending Moses to deliver Israel; "when I shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? And God said .... I WILL BE THAT I WILL BE .... say .... I WILL BE hath sent me" (Ex 3:13,14 margin). The name is assumed as known in the narrative of Genesis; it also occurs in pre-Mosaic names (Ex 6:20; 1Ch 2:25;7:8). (3) The derivation is from the archaic chawah, "to be," better "to become," in Biblical Hebrew hayah; this archaic use of w for y appears also in derivatives of the similar chayah, "to live," e.g. chawwah in Ge 3:20. (4) It is evident from the interpretative passages (Ex 3; 6) that the form is the future of the simple stem (Qal) and not future of the causative (Hiph‘il) stem in the sense "giver of life"—an idea not borne out by any of the occurrences of the word. (5) The meaning may with some confidence be inferred from Origen’s transliteration, Iao, the form in Samaritan, Iabe, the form as combined in Old Testament names, and the evident signification in Ex 3 and other passages, to be that of the simple future, yahweh, "he will be." It does not express causation, nor existence in a metaphysical sense, but the covenant promise of the Divine presence, both at the immediate time and in the Messianic age of the future. And thus it became bound up with the Messianic hope, as in the phrase, "the Day of Yahweh," and consequently both it and the Septuagint translation Kurios were applied by the New Testament as titles of Christ. Υπάρχει μια διαφορά μεταξύ του Θεού και του Κυρίου. δεν μπορεί να θεωρηθεί το ίδιο και το όνομα του "Jehovah" δεν είναι αμοιβαία. Markinsa, see above thread. Mark, here is the translation. There is a difference between God and the principal. It cannot be regarded as the same and the name 'Jehovah' is non-reciprocal 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nelg Posted May 8, 2013 Report Share Posted May 8, 2013 There is a difference between God and the principal. It cannot be regarded as the same and the name 'Jehovah' is non-reciprocal Why do you think that YHWH does not have the meaning of LORD? Is it something in the translation or theology that bothers you? Just asking. Often we wrangle about words when in reality it doesn't make that much difference. It becomes two involved most people and will cause the unbeliever to scratch there head and wonder if they will ever understand the Christian. I enjoy the challenge and the sharpening of swords, but I wonder if it does any good. That's why I want to know the theological reason for your insistence that Jehovah is not a legitimate designation or description of the Lord. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pattyangel Posted May 8, 2013 Report Share Posted May 8, 2013 Nelg, very interesting conversation that you are having here with some of the members. Your poise is very becoming. Enjoying every bit of it. But then again I always enjoy what you share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texas1 Posted May 8, 2013 Report Share Posted May 8, 2013 OMG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totalspambox3000 Posted May 8, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 8, 2013 There is a difference between God and the principal. It cannot be regarded as the same and the name 'Jehovah' is non-reciprocal Why do you think that YHWH does not have the meaning of LORD? Is it something in the translation or theology that bothers you? Just asking. Often we wrangle about words when in reality it doesn't make that much difference. It becomes two involved most people and will cause the unbeliever to scratch there head and wonder if they will ever understand the Christian. I enjoy the challenge and the sharpening of swords, but I wonder if it does any good. That's why I want to know the theological reason for your insistence that Jehovah is not a legitimate designation or description of the Lord. . What I was merely stating in my original post was that "Jehovah" was an amalgamation, and did not exist is ancient texts, nor in any Greek version thereafter. It is a product of 15th century mishandling when attempting to make YHWH discernable. Personally, I choose not to attempt to give him a name. "I am" works for me. I understand your point, but I think you read more into than I intended. "Jesus" makes more sense as a translation from Aramaic into Greek, as it is transliterative. Just like Ἰωάννης (Iohannes) is the Greek form of the Hebrew Yohanan. This can be John, Ivan, etc. in other languages. My point being that Jehovah as a word is not a transliterative, as it is an amalgamation, and not in line with ancient texts. Others can call him whatever they feel or believe is right and I am making no protest of their chosen names for God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nelg Posted May 8, 2013 Report Share Posted May 8, 2013 . What I was merely stating in my original post was that "Jehovah" was an amalgamation, and did not exist is ancient texts, nor in any Greek version thereafter. It is a product of 15th century mishandling when attempting to make YHWH discernable. Personally, I choose not to attempt to give him a name. "I am" works for me. I understand your point, but I think you read more into than I intended. "Jesus" makes more sense as a translation from Aramaic into Greek, as it is transliterative. Just like Ἰωάννης (Iohannes) is the Greek form of the Hebrew Yohanan. This can be John, Ivan, etc. in other languages. My point being that Jehovah as a word is not a transliterative, as it is an amalgamation, and not in line with ancient texts. Others can call him whatever they feel or believe is right and I am making no protest of their chosen names for God. Then I would agree with you. There are several words in the "translations" where I wish the translators had used more expressive and literal meanings. Our versions are geared to accommodate the understanding of present cultures, and often they miss the intent of the original writer and language. That's were "commentators" come into the picture. We are give an understanding of the original meaning and often that is difficult. I appreciate your challenge to the readers of these post and to me. Enjoyed it. Now I'm off to teach two classes today, one at 7:30 this morning and another at 4:30 this afternoon. Have a great day! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totalspambox3000 Posted May 8, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 8, 2013 I enjoyed it as well. I think it is important that people question and explore further what is handed to them.... Especially when it comes to something as delicate as their beliefs. I think I've watched too many Ehrman/Souza debates! ;-) I tried sending you a PM Spambox but could not find the send me as messege button. Do we still have those here at DV? It shows that you did, but won't let me access it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markinsa Posted May 8, 2013 Report Share Posted May 8, 2013 It shows that you did, but won't let me access it. Click on your Avatar, which will take you to your profile page, and then click on "Profile Feed" on the left. - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
umbertino Posted May 8, 2013 Report Share Posted May 8, 2013 Also, the New World Translation adds "Jehovah" into the New Testament 237 times, where there is absolutely no ancient manuscript evidence of any kind to support it - PERIOD. Learn Greek and Hebrew and the truth shall set you free. I had to take ancient Greek in my classic studies high school, besides Latin.....Studying the various Authors is one thing but having also to study ancient Greek ( learn how to write it, diff. characters than our alphabet, as you know) was tough .. Then we'd be given compositions in school and had to translate Classics excerpts.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totalspambox3000 Posted May 8, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 8, 2013 I tried sending you a PM Spambox but could not find the send me as messege button. Do we still have those here at DV? Botzwana, I was finally able to get your PM. Please check yours inbox for my response, and thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATHIM Posted May 8, 2013 Report Share Posted May 8, 2013 Allah is the Arabic word for God. Christians use the word as well as Muslims. Allah to a Christian means the Holy Trinity. I read the Greek text. It was well written and if it was a translation program then I am surprised and impressed. For me there is but One God in three persons and He is mysterious and far beyond our comprehension. He did though choose, out of an infinite universe that he created, to become a beyond tiny human piece of it to teach us humility, love and the path of redemption through grace and faith. Unfortunately Rome has gone sideways and the Protestants have butchered what was left. So now, much to the dismay of God, we will seek Him and not find Him. Love is the key, that we can perfect and go before His judgment seat with, knowledge of God will ever be illusive, but love we can manage and that is His language of choice over judgment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totalspambox3000 Posted May 8, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 8, 2013 ATHIM, you sound like you might be Orthodox. Are you? I am Greek Orthodox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATHIM Posted May 9, 2013 Report Share Posted May 9, 2013 ATHIM, you sound like you might be Orthodox. Are you? I am Greek Orthodox. Yes I am. Ironically, a Youth Director at an Antiochian Church. All Arabs and a wonderful, generous and faithful congregation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totalspambox3000 Posted May 9, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 9, 2013 That's awesome! Peace be with you! I added you as a friend, you must have a lot to say about the current state of the church in Syria... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cranster Posted May 9, 2013 Report Share Posted May 9, 2013 Why is this important? Y H W H means "I Am, Who I Am?" Correct? - I Am who Am. God declares Himself the non contingent ground of existence."I Am, who I Am" I think might be popeye, or was that "I yam what I yam." I enjoyed it as well. I think it is important that people question and explore further what is handed to them.... Especially when it comes to something as delicate as their beliefs. I think I've watched too many Ehrman/Souza debates! ;-) It shows that you did, but won't let me access it. Love those Ehrman Souza debates. Love William Lane Craig as well. Interesting that Richard Dawkins refuses to debate him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts